Life Cycle Validation Study of Algal Biofuels in

Philippines via CML Impact Assessment

Aristotle T. Ubando Nieves A. Toledo
Mechanical Engineering Department, Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean
De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas,
Philippines Iloilo, Philippines
[email protected] [email protected]

Ivan Henderson V. Gue Soledad S. Garibay

Mechanical Engineering Department, Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean
De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas,
Philippines Iloilo, Philippines
[email protected] [email protected]

Andres Philip Mayol Caridad N. Jimenez

Graduate Student, Mechanical Engineering Department, Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean
De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas,
Philippines Iloilo, Philippines
[email protected] [email protected]

Charles B. Felix Jose Bienvenido M. Biona

Graduate Student, Mechanical Engineering Department, Mechanical Engineering Department,
De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila,
Philippines Philippines
[email protected] [email protected]

Christian Joseph Ronquillo Alvin B. Culaba

Graduate Student, Mechanical Engineering Department, Mechanical Engineering Department,
De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila,
Philippines Philippines
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract— Biodiesel is seen as one of the promising were less than the benchmark value of one. Thus, the result of
alternatives for fossil-based fuels while reducing the carbon this study can be used to improve the EROEI of the algal
dioxide emissions. However, as first generation biodiesels are biodiesel life cycle in the Philippines.
derived from food crops, the concern on food versus fuel
heightens. As such, algal biodiesel is perceived as a solution to Keywords—biodiesel, life cycle assessment, microalgae, CML-IA
this problem, due to its lesser land requirement while having
high oil yield compared to biofuels derived from conventional I. INTRODUCTION
feedstocks. As the Philippines is considered as a thriving habitat Nearly half of the global energy consumption comes from
for numerous microalgae species in the tropics, it offers a big petroleum fuels, with two-thirds coming from oil [1]. As the
potential for algae biofuel production. However, like any other combustion of petroleum fuels leads to an increase of carbon
bioenergy system, algal biofuels require natural resource dioxide (CO2) emissions, the energy dependency on fossil fuels
consumption and entails environmental impact. Hence, a life
has led to CO2 concentrations above the recommended
cycle assessment approach is proposed in this study to assess the
current microalgae cultivation setup in the Philippines. A
operating level [2]. One of its main contributor is the transport
validation study is conducted to compare the results of an sector, as it contributes nearly a quarter of the total emissions
aquaculture setup in the Philippines and a cultivation system by [3]. Driven by population growth, the demand for liquid fuel
Khoo et al. (2011). The functional unit used is 1 ton algal constantly increases. Out of the liquid fuels, diesel is highly
biodiesel. The results of the study revealed that the cultivation needed in the transportation sector. Thus, an environmental
system found in the Philippines has performed well as compared friendly solution in producing the required diesel fuel demand
to Khoo et al. (2011), in terms of the impact assessment and is needed.
energy consumption. However, the study also found that the
Biodiesel is a promising alternative to conventional fossil
energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of the two models
fuel which provides lesser CO2 emission. Conventional

978-1-4673-7728-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

biomass feedstocks used for biodiesel are, jatropha, canola,
corn, and coconut. However, these feedstocks heightens the Cultivation Drying
Oil Transesteri
concern on food versus fuel [4]. The use of third generation Extraction fication
biofuels, however, may alleviate this problem such as algal
biofuels (biofuels produced from microalgae). Fig. 1. LCA System Boundary
Microalgae are unicellular microorganisms that uses CO2 A. Impact Assessment Method
for photosynthesis, and considered as one of the large plant
In this work, the CML-IA method was the adapted impact
taxa in the world [5]. Moreover, microalgae produce higher oil
yield on a given land area [4] . The conventional conversion assessment methodology. The advantage of the proposed
pathway of biodiesel from microalgae consists of the following method is its ability to incorporate normalization of the most
processes from cultivation, harvesting, drying, oil extraction, to important impact categories making it easier to compare with
transesterification. In any bioenergy system, it would require other published data. The baseline indicators of this method
natural resource consumption and environmental emission. To are summarized in the Appendix. The corresponding names of
further investigate the impact of the production of algal the impact categories, based from the April 2013 version of
biofuels, a life cycle assessment approach is proposed in this the method [6], used in the software are also given [11].
study.
B. LCA Inventory
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a standard approach in 1) Cultivation
quantifying the environmental impacts and energy balance of a Two cultivation systems are considered in this study. One
certain system. Some LCA studies consider the use of CML-IA is the integrated photobioreactor (PBR) and raceway pond
method, software that characterizes the impact factors for Life system based from ICES, while the other one is an open pond
Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) [6]. Lardon et al (2009) used system UPV. The PBR system in the ICES cultivation system
CML-IA to assess the impact of algae to biofuels from cradle utilizes an air compressor that consumes 0.89 kWh per kg dry
to grave system boundary. In addition, Ecoinvent was for the algae, while its raceway pond system has a paddlewheel that
inventory analysis with a functional unit of 1 MJ of biodiesel in consumes 0.31 kWh per kg dry algae. Since the energy
various studies in literature [7]. Collet et al. (2011) used the consumption is based on per dry biomass, adjustments were
same method to assess the cradle to grave system boundary of implemented by allocating the energy consumption on per kg
algae to biofuels [8]. However, experimental data was used for wet biomass basis. The system also has a dedicated pump for
the inventory analysis of other supporting literatures. Lastly, CO2 delivery, which consumes 22.2 kWh per ton of CO2
Hou et al (2011) used GaBi and various literatures for impact delivered, based from [12]. Also, in [10], the study was able to
assessment in the LCA of algal biofuels from cradle-to-grave include the CO2 consumption of the algal biomass, which the
[9]. study considered to be 1.83 kg of CO2 per kg of algal biomass,
To assess the viability of utilizing a Philippines-based based from [13]. Meanwhile, the cultivation system in UPV is
hatchery system as a cultivation unit for the production of algal an integrated system of a laboratory scale and an industrial
biodiesel, this study would utilize the LCA approach. In which, scale. An algal culture is first grown in the laboratory, which is
the cultivation system at the Institute of Aquaculture, College then further cultured in an industrial cultivation system. This
of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines would entail a similar integrated PBR and raceway pond
Visayas (UPV) would compared with the cultivation system at system as that with the ICES system. It should be noted that
the Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES) in UPV mainly produces microalgae for aquaculture industry.
Singapore [10]. A comparative LCA analysis will be Hence, no CO2 raw material was used during the cultivation
conducted between the ICES model and the UPV model as a phase in UPV. Lastly, both cultivation systems would
validation results using CML-IA. The following paper is constitute the use of nutrients and which are summarized in
organized as follows. The LCA methodology for algal Table 1, alongside with the electricity consumption.
biodiesel is discussed in the next section Followed by the TABLE I. Process Consumption for 1kg of Wet Biomass Cultivation
results and discussion. Lastly, the conclusion of the study
together with potential future works is discussed. Inputs UPV ICES
Cultivation Cultivation
II. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF ALGAE BIODIESEL [10]
This section describes the methodology used in this study. Energy Consumption (kWh) 0.0675 0.1775
The LCA study considered five processes of the algal NaNO3 0 21300
biodiesel production. The system boundary, as shown in Fig. NaH2PO4 (mg) 0.702 1420
1, consists of the cultivation, the drying, the oil extraction, and FeCl3.6H2O (mg) 0.211 894
the transesterification processes. The functional unit CuSO4.5H2O (mg) 284 0
considered in the study is one ton of biodiesel. Comparisons ZnSO4.7H2O (mg) 0 624
are made between two cultivation systems from UPV and KNO3 (mg) 7.02 0
ICES. Ammonium Phosphate
53.2 0
(21-0-0) (mg)
Ammonium Sulphate (mg) 26.6 0
Urea (mg) 26.6 0

978-1-4673-7728-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

 2) Harvesting III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the harvesting process, this study considered that the
A. Energy Balance
process can extract 43 kg of harvested biomass from 100 kg of
wet biomass of the cultivation system, based from [14]. The life cycle energy result comparison between the
Meanwhile, electricity consumption of the harvesting process investigation of the ICES model and the UPV model is shown
is assumed to be as much as 0.00464 kWh per kg of dry in Fig. 2. In both studies, it is observed that the highest energy
biomass, based from [10]. In which, the study considered the consumed process is the oil extraction process. Both studies
harvesting method wherein the coagulation process is consumed 42,222.22 kWh. However, both studies differ in the
integrated with an air sparging technique to further facilitate cultivation stage process, where the ICES model consumed
the harvesting process. FeCl3.6H2O was used as a coagulant more energy than the UPV. To produce 1 ton of biodiesel, the
and is infused with air before its delivery to the algal culture. ICES model consumed 5,555.55 kWh of energy. In addition,
UPV consumed 2,112.18 kWh of energy. Observing the whole
3) Dewatering life cycle chain in the processes, the summation up all energy
For the dewatering process, it was assumed that 33% of the consumption in each of the study to produce 1 ton of biodiesel
harvested biomass can be dewatered to form the dry biomass. is needed. UPV consumed 45,689.47 kWh while ICES
The dewatering method considered for this study is the consumed 49,132.83 kWh. Moreover, the energy returned on
centrifugation method. The resulting biomass from the energy invested (EROEI) of both studies indicates that the
centrifugation process would have a biomass content of 15% ICES consume more energy than UPV having an EROEI of
and would consume 0.1 kWh of energy per kg dry biomass 0.22 for ICES and 0.24 for UPV. Hence, the cultivation
produced [10]. process of UPV has an advantage in terms of energy
consumption than ICES. However, as the EROEI is less than
4) Oil Extraction
one, there is more energy used than energy produced, which is
The oil extraction rate considered is 25%. Since in [10], it
an indicator that the system is not sustainable for energy
was assumed that 25% of dried algal biomass can be extracted
production. Therefore, as the largest contributor of energy
into oil, which is further backed by the fact that the assumption
consumption, the energy consumption in the oil extraction
falls within the ranges of the lipid contents of some of the
process must be reduced to increase the feasibility of
known microalgal species [4]. The process also consumes
microalgae-to-biodiesel in the Philippines.
hexane for oil extraction. The amount of hexane used is three
time the volume of methanol used [10]. Lastly, in the ICES
system, after the hexane was able to extract the lipids out of the
dried biomass, a rotary evaporator is used to separate the lipids 45000
and the solvents. This process entails the consumption of 38 40000
35000
kWh per kg of algal oil extracted. 30000
kWh

25000
5) Transesterification 20000
The last method within the system boundary is the 15000
10000 PCS
transesterification process. The extracted lipid is converted into 5000
biodiesel using methanol. In [15], the methanol consumption 0 ICES
for this process is one-tenths of the biodiesel produced.
Therefore, for a 1000 kg of biodiesel produced, 100 kg of
methanol is used in this process. A 90% conversion efficiency
is assumed, wherein for a 1000 kg of oil used, 900 kg of
biodiesel is produced [10]. Lastly, the total energy requirement
for the biodiesel conversion is 0.89 kWh per kg of biodiesel
produced [1]. The energy consumption is a sum of the Fig. 2. ICES vs UPV Energy Balance Result
electricity required for the process itself and the energy
required to produce the methanol required. The summary of the B. Impact Assessment
energy consumed for the processes of harvesting to The comparative result of the impact assessment is shown
transesterification is shown in Table 2. in Table 3. In terms of impact assessment, the UPV model was
TABLE II. Energy Consumption for 1kg of Biodiesel Production able to achieve better performance as compared to the ICES
model in 10 out of 11 impact categories, as shown in Fig. 3.
Upon inspection of the different process contribution, the
Process Energy Consumption (kWh) consumption of NaNO3 of the ICES model has among the
largest contribution to the 10 impact factors. This is because of
Harvesting 0.206
the large consumption of NaNO3, which is at 667kg per ton of
Dewatering 0.444 biodiesel. Therefore, the nutrients used for the UPV model has
Oil Extraction 42.222 shown better performance on the different impact categories as
Transesterification 0.889 compared to the nutrients used by the ICES model.
Among the 11 impact categories, however, there is one
impact category the ICES model was able to outperform the
UPV model. As shown in Table 3, the impact category that the

978-1-4673-7728-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

ICES model performed better than the UPV model is the need to find an alternative to its nutrient consumption so that it
Global Warming factor. The reasoning behind this is that the may achieve better performance as compared to the UPV
ICES model was able to account the CO2 consumption of the model.
system, while the UPV model was not. If the CO2 consumption
was not considered for, the UPV model would perform better For the global warming potential (GWP) category, the
with a percent difference of 12.5%. Therefore, the accounting ICES model performed better than UPV model which is
of CO2 consumption can be considered as a vital element in accountable the CO2 raw material in cultivation. On the other
determine the feasibility of the UPV model. hand, UPV cultivation setup does not require CO2 as a raw
material. Hence, to improve on the GWP of UPV, it would
TABLE III. Impact Assessment Result require using CO2 as an input in its cultivation stage.

Impact Category Unit UPV ICES The study compared two models with only two distinct
cultivation systems. Future studies might consider variations of
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq. 3.88E-03 2.78E-02
other processes. As one of the most important process needed
to be consider for energy consumption is the drying process,
Abiotic depletion future studies might need to consider a comparison of models
MJ 4.33E+05 4.91E+05
(fossil fuels) of different drying process, such as the rotary process [8], or
Global warming the steam drying process [16], to name a few. Lastly, a
kg CO2 eq. 5.06E+04 4.98E+04 sensitivity analysis must be done on the different parameters of
potential (GWP)
Ozone layer kg CFC-11 the models, so that a robust assessment can be attained.
3.80E-04 6.27E-04
depletion (ODP) eq.
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
kg 1,4-DB
Human toxicity 9.25E+03 1.18E+04 This study is supported by the U.S. Agency for
eq.
Fresh water kg 1,4-DB
International Development (USAID) through its Science,
4.51E+03 5.88E+03 Technology, Research, and Innovation for Development
aquatic ecotox. eq.
(STRIDE) Program with USAID Contract No. AID-492-A-13-
Marine aquatic kg 1,4-DB
ecotoxicity eq.
5.20E+07 5.86E+07 00011.
Terrestrial kg 1,4-DB VI. REFERENCES
4.31E+01 5.16E+01
ecotoxicity eq.
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), “Key World
Photochemical
oxidation
kg C2H4 eq. 1.92E+01 2.12E+01 Energy Statistics,” 2014.
[2] J. E. A. Rockstrom, “A safe operating space for
Acidification kg SO2 eq. 4.99E+02 5.53E+02 humanity,” Nature, vol. 461, no. September, pp. 472–
475, 2009.
kg PO4---
Eutrophication
eq.
4.26E+01 5.57E+01 [3] International Energy Agency (IEA), “CO2 Emissions
from Fuel Combustion Highlights.”
[4] Y. Chisti, “Biodiesel from microalgae.,” Biotechnol.
100% Adv., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 294–306, Jan. 2007.
80% [5] I. Rawat, R. Ranjith Kumar, T. Mutanda, and F. Bux,
60% “Biodiesel from microalgae: A critical evaluation
40% PCS from laboratory to large scale production,” Appl.
20% Energy, vol. 103, pp. 444–467, Mar. 2013.
0%
ICES [6] Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), “CML-IA
Characterisation Factors,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
ADPF
ADP

GWP
ODP

MAE

PO
HT

TE

E
A
FWAE

http://www.cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html.
[Accessed: 28-Oct-2015].
[7] L. Lardon, A. Hélias, B. Sialve, J.-P. Steyer, and O.
Fig. 3. Normalized Impact Assessment Result Bernard, “Life-cycle assessment of biodiesel
production from microalgae,” Environ. Sci. Technol.,
IV. CONCLUSION
vol. 43, no. 17, pp. 6475–6481, 2009.
Even though the UPV model was able to reduce the energy [8] P. Collet, A. Hélias, L. Lardon, M. Ras, R.-A. Goy,
consumption of the cultivation system, the EROEI is still and J.-P. Steyer, “Life-cycle assessment of microalgae
subpar form the other cultivation system found in the literature. culture coupled to biogas production.,” Bioresour.
As such, the two models can further be improved by using Technol., vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 207–14, Jan. 2011.
energy efficient systems. Compared to different studies from [9] J. Hou, P. Zhang, X. Yuan, and Y. Zheng, “Life cycle
literature, the EROEI ranges from 0.97 to 3.56 [8]. assessment of biodiesel from soybean, jatropha and
In the impact assessment done, the UPV model was able to microalgae in China conditions,” Renew. Sustain.
achieve lower environmental impact for most of the impact Energy Rev., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 5081–5091, Dec.
categories, as this is associated with the large consumption of 2011.
NaNO3 by the ICES model. Therefore, the ICES model would

978-1-4673-7728-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

[10] H. H. Khoo, P. N. Sharratt, P. Das, R. K. pp. 491–515, Jan. 2003.
Balasubramanian, P. K. Naraharisetti, and S. Shaik, [14] M. L. Gerardo, S. Van Den Hende, H. Vervaeren, T.
“Life cycle energy and CO2 analysis of microalgae-to- Coward, and S. C. Skill, “Harvesting of microalgae
biodiesel: Preliminary results and comparisons,” within a biorefinery approach: A review of the
Bioresour. Technol., vol. 102, no. 10, pp. 5800–5807, developments and case studies from pilot-plants,”
May 2011. Algal Res., vol. 11, pp. 248–262, Sep. 2015.
[11] PRé, “SimaPro Database Manual.” 2015. [15] L. Yanfen, H. Zehao, and M. Xiaoqian, “Energy
[12] K. . Kadam, “Environmental implications of power analysis and environmental impacts of microalgal
generation via coal-microalgae cofiring,” Energy, vol. biodiesel in China,” Energy Policy, vol. 45, pp. 142–
27, no. 10, pp. 905–922, Oct. 2002. 151, Jun. 2012.
[13] E. Molina Grima, E.-H. Belarbi, F. . Acién Fernández, [16] R. Baliga and S. E. Powers, “Sustainable algae
A. Robles Medina, and Y. Chisti, “Recovery of biodiesel production in cold climates,” Int. J. Chem.
microalgal biomass and metabolites: process options Eng., vol. 2010, 2010.
and economics,” Biotechnol. Adv., vol. 20, no. 7–8,

VII. APPENDIX – IMPACT CATEGORIES

Impact Category Description Character Unit Geographic Time Name in
Model Scope Span SimaPro
Depletion of Extraction of minerals Abiotic Depletion kg Sbeq/ kg Global - Abiotic
abiotic resources and fossil fuels Factor (ADF) extraction Depletion

Climate Change Emissions of GHG to Global Warming kg CO2/ kg Global 100 Global warming
the air Potential for emission years (GWP100)
(GWP)
Stratospheric Penetrability of UV Ozone Depletion Kg CFC-11eq/ Global Infinite Ozone layer
ozone depletion radiation to the earth’s Potential kg emission depletion (ODP)
surface

Human toxicity Effects of toxic Human Toxicity 1,4-dichloroben Local or Global, Infinite Human toxicity
substances on human Potentials (HTP) zene equivalent/ depending on
environment kg emission the substance
Fresh-water Emissions of toxic Freshwater Eco- 1,4-dichloroben Global/ Infinite Fresh water
aquatic substances to toxicity Potential zene equivalent/ Continental/ aquatic
ecotoxicity freshwater ecosystems (FAETP) kg emission Regional/ Local ecotoxicity

Marine Emissions of toxic Marine Eco- 1,4-dichloroben Global/ Infinite Marine aquatic
ecotoxicity substances to marine toxicity Potential zene equivalent/ Continental/ ecotoxicity
ecosystems kg emission Regional/ Local
Terrestrial Emissions of toxic Terrestrial Eco- 1,4-dichloroben Global/ Infinite Terrestrial
ecotoxicity substances to toxicity Potential zene equivalent/ Continental/ ecotoxicity
terrestrial ecosystems kg emission Regional/ Local
Photo-oxidant Smog formation at Photochemical kg ethylene Local/ 5 days Photochemical
formation ground level (summer Ozone Creation equivalent/ kg Continental oxidation
smog) Potential (POCP) emission
Acidification Effects of acidifying Acidification kg SO2eq/ kg Local/ Eternity Acidification
substances to soil, Potential (AP) emission Continental
water, organisms,
ecosystems and
buildings
Eutrophication Effects of excessive Nutrification kg PO4eq/ kg Local/ Eternity Eutrophication
levels of nutrients in Potential (NP) emission Continental
environment

978-1-4673-7728-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE